Deficits in social functioning are a core symptom of schizophrenia and an important criterion for evaluating the success of treatment. However, there is little agreement regarding its measurement. A common, often cited instrument for assessing self-reported social functioning is the Social Functioning Scale (SFS). The study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the German translation. 101 patients suffering from schizophrenia (SZ) and 101 matched controls (C) (60 male / 41 female, 35.8 years in both groups) completed the German version. In addition, demographic, clinical, and functional data were collected. Internal consistency was investigated calculating Cronbach’s alpha for SFS full scale (α: .81) and all subscales (α: .59-.88). Significant bivariate correlation coefficients were found between all subscales as well as between all subscales and full scale (p <.01). For the total sample, principal component analysis gave evidence to prefer a single-factor solution (eigenvalue ≥ 1) accounting for 48.5 % of the variance. For the subsamples, a two-component solution (SZ; 57.0 %) and a three-component solution (C; 65.6 %) fitted best, respectively. For SZ and C, significant associations were found between SFS and external criteria. The main factor “group” emerged as being significant. C showed higher values on both subscales and full scale. The sensitivity of the SFS was examined using discriminant analysis. 86.5% of the participants could be categorized correctly to their actual group. The German translation of the SFS turned out to be a reliable and valid questionnaire comparable to the original English version. This is in line with Spanish and Norwegian translations of the SFS. Concluding, the German version of the SFS is well suited to become a useful and practicable instrument for the assessment of social functioning in both clinical practice and research. It accomplishes commonly used external assessment scales.

Directional social gaze and symbolic arrow cues both serve as spatial cues, causing seemingly reflexive shifts of an observer’s attention. However, the underlying neural substrates remain a point at issue. The present study specifically addressed the differences in the activation patterns associated with non-predictive gaze and arrow cues, placing special emphasis on brain regions known to be involved in the processing of social information [superior temporal sulcus (STS), fusiform gyrus (FFG)]. Additionally, the functional connectivity of these brain regions with other areas involved in gaze processing and spatial attention was investigated. Results indicate that gaze and arrow cues recruit several brain regions differently, with gaze cues increasing activation in occipito-temporal regions and arrow cues increasing activation in occipito-parietal regions. Specifically, gaze cues in contrast to arrow cues enhanced activation in the FFG and the STS. Functional connectivity analysis revealed that during gaze cueing the STS was more strongly connected to the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and the frontal eye fields, whereas the FFG was more strongly connected to the IPS and the amygdala.

Visual attention is the cognitive process that mediates the selection of important information from the environment. This selection is usually controlled by bottom-up and top-down attentional biasing. Since for most humans vision is the dominant sense, visual attention is critically important for higher-order cognitive functions and related deficits are a core symptom of many neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. Here, we summarize the importance and relative contributions of different neuromodulators and neurotransmitters to the neural mechanisms of top-down and bottom-up attentional control. We will not only review the roles of widely accepted neuromodulators, such as acetylcholine, dopamine and noradrenaline, but also the contributions of other modulatory substances. In doing so, we hope to shed some light on the current understanding of the role of neurochemistry in shaping neuron properties contributing to the allocation of attention in the visual field.

Since our environment typically contains more information than can be processed at any one time due to the limited capacity of our visual system, we are bound to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information. This process, termed attentional selection, is usually categorized into bottom-up and top-down processes. However, recent research suggests reward might also be an important factor in guiding attention. Monetary reward can bias attentional selection in favor of task-relevant targets and reduce the efficiency of visual search when a reward-associated, but task-irrelevant distractor is present. This study is the first to investigate reward-related target and distractor processing in an additional singleton task using neurophysiological measures and source space analysis. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that source space analysis would find enhanced neural activity in regions of the value-based attention network, such as the visual cortex and the anterior cingulate. Additionally, we went further and explored the time courses of the underlying attentional mechanisms. Our neurophysiological results showed that rewarding distractors led to a stronger attentional capture. In line with this, we found that reward-associated distractors (compared with reward-associated targets) enhanced activation in frontal regions, indicating the involvement of top-down control processes. As hypothesized, source space analysis demonstrated that reward-related targets and reward-related distractors elicited activation in regions of the value-based attention network. However, these activations showed time-dependent differences, indicating that the neural mechanisms underlying reward biasing might be different for task-relevant and task-irrelevant stimuli.

Inhibition processing is an inherent part of cognitive and behavioral control. The aim of the present study was to develop and investigate psychometric criteria of an experimental paradigm that combines Stroop interference and negative priming, both of which involve inhibitory processes. We adopted a Stroop matching paradigm assessing interference control and implemented a negative priming condition. A nonclinical community sample of 94 volunteers performed this Stroop Negative Priming Matching paradigm. Since timing plays a role in priming, the interval between the prime and the probe has been varied in length (500 ms, 800 ms, and 3000 ms). The main results showed both, effects of Stroop interference and negative priming, as indicated by reaction times and incorrect responses. Reduced time pressure showed an effect on response speed and accuracy, but no interaction with interference and priming effects occurred. Reliability computed as internal consistency was generally high and did not differ between Stroop interference and negative priming scales. Retest-reliability was best for the prime–probe interval of 3000 ms. Concluding, the Stroop negative priming matching task provides reliable and directly comparable assessment of Stroop interference and negative priming effects.